minorly *nsfw due to some nudity.

This didn't really work for me. The Moonlight Sonata just didn't mesh with Hotel California, and the imagery just felt like a random early 90s video by Marilyn Manson or Nirvana or . Not that those videos are bad, it's just been done before.

How can I show this to my neighbours and make them understand it?Timeline of this weekend - we saw some of them dressed to the nines getting into a stretched limo on Friday.

On Saturday they (as normally) loudly discussed how the person they saw could have performed for 5 more minutes whilst simultaneously stating how this performer had proven Michael Jackson's saintliness because said MJ had stayed with the performer for 4 days.

It's worth noting at this point all we knew was they went out somewhere in a stretched limo and saw someone who had MJ to visit for 4 days.

On the Sunday the normal loud talking over our fence lead to the discovery that not only did my neighbors take a stretched limo to arrive at a Michael Flatley concert. They couldn't recall the name of the long haired blonde peado with a cigar (it was Jimmy Saville - most prolific sexual predator in history) or as they roundly called him "that Australian dude" (Rolf Harris - more cherished, like painted the queens portrait, but still sent down for being a peed).

So the outcome of this is my neighbors who have a very small 4 bed house (would be 3 except they opened the loft), own 9 cars, have a 32, 26 and 18 year old still living at home. They hire a stretched limo so they go an see Michael Flatley perform live then come home and discuss loudly how Michael Jackson was obviously a good person because he stayed with Michael Flatley. Shortly afterwards they then totally struggled to remember the names of the biggest sex offender ever known in the uk and the most treasured letdown of all time.

This is almost par with them discussing a new flavor of chips/crisps for 45 min or that time 4 of them tried to count the same amount of change for >20 mins and none of them could agree the same amount.

Sorry had to rant - I'd love to confront them over the noise/cars/stupidity etc but I'm a mildly tough 40 year old. Their highly violent and the 26 year is a goddamn cagefighter.

I honestly can't vent enough - literally I could write a novel on how much my neighbors suck. Just as a final point to carry things across - I recently needed to cut back some ivy in my backgarden. During the hour this took they played Natasha Beddingfield's "These Words" 5 times. Yes I'm a Maggot, Yes I'm a 40 year old who probably needs to stop jumping into moshpits. But Natasha Beddingfield??? 5 times?? Really????

Upvote for "nine inch noise".

I'm not sure if this is what you're saying (I might not be reading this correctly), but the ending they had from the start is the one where the mother dies, not this happy one. This was a backup ending that they filmed just in case they chickened out.

The problem with the real ending, for me, is twofold:

1) It didn't take into account how great Cristin Milioti was as the mother, and how much chemistry she had with Josh Radnor, which made her death an even bigger bummer. The original plan was going to be for us to only meet her very briefly, which would have made that ending sting a lot less.

2) I didn't take into account that the show was going to run for as long as it did. If the show had run for say, four or five seasons, the whole "Ted is still in love with Robin" thing would have seemed way less creepy and strung along. As it was, because the writers had to continually plant the seeds of Robin and Ted still being in love with each other throughout the show's nine years to make their ending still make sense, it made their relationship seem unhealthy and toxic. The finale comes off as weird and sad instead of romantic.

But yeah, I'll agree with everyone else that the last few seasons of the show were pretty weak. That fart of an ending was just the final insult.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Nine Inch Nails, Sanctified, Austin City Limits' to 'Nine Inch Nails, Sanctified, Austin City Limits, pretty hate machine' - edited by enoch

He looks pretty scrawny for a nine year old. Probably not getting enough GMO foods.

Not to mention that most of the vines that currently exist in EU, are hybrids from American vines. This is because of the phylloxera mite that devasted between 2/3 and nine tenths of all wine vines in Europe *especially in France where they saw the most devastation. The only way they could save their vines was to graft American vines which as a natural resistance to the phylloxera mite. Suck it France, we'll call it whatever we want - losers.

I seem to remember this as a thing back in the olden daze of the nine dees.

@RedSky

Crossing your fingers and waiting for the tooth fairy to fix everything is not a valid response to global crises. That is what passivity amounts to whether your eventual, hoped for remedy is shiny's simple-minded faith or failed economic models that got us into this mess in the first place, or unforeseeable scientific advances that may never come.

You've been using the most preposterously optimistic projections available, okay, let's assume they're correct and we level off at somewhere around nine to eleven billion. You want all of these people to live worthwhile, prosperous lives; well that's at least five times as many high energy consuming, 21st century humans as we've ever actually been able to support.

This coming at the end of an economic and technological bubble of readily available, dense energy supply for which we have no replacement; relative efficiency gains in spending that energy that can never be replicated (because efficiency doesn't go above 100%); casual environmental damage that cannot continue; and diminishing returns in every scientific field, where advancement is always becoming more difficult and more expensive.

This isn't a pessimistic view. Humanity has a bright future, all we have to do to secure it is stop creating more and more people out of nothing for no reason. Barring extra-terrestrial threats like meteorites, solar flares and relativistic missiles launched by hostile alien species; we have the knowledge we need to build a civilisation capable of enduring for millions of years, or burn out in a couple of hundred.

Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

You keep thinking that then if you'd like. As I watched this, when he asked what card he was thinking of I thought to myself 'nine of hearts'- NO SHIT

Somewhere embedded in his technique is the answer to the suggestion
Metaprogrammings' a motherfucker.

Anyone else??

Or wait....Maybe it's simply having seen this before and the 9 of hearts was already there, locked into the folds of the hippo-campus/cerebral cortex highway? Don't recall ever having seen this before...

Either ways...If David Blaine came over, I'd prolly tell him what Han Solo here told him BEFORE he had a chance to mind-fuck me..The difference? It wouldn't be......"ACTING!!!"

Seriously though, y'all really thought that Blaine was being rudely and cruelly ejected from his home?? C'mon people...suspend your disbelief for the sake of your hearts and get over yourselves....all he said was the 'eff' word.

"Next up: Blaine will bury himself in the permafrost of Antarctica in a steaming-hot bubble-bath of human blood and for forty days and forty nights with but a single meal-worm to snack on for the duration. When he rises from his ghoulish and self-imposed sarcophagus he will have drunk all the contents of the bathtub...But first, this commercial interruption to your body's natural vibrations."

NIN fan? Thought the first video was quite good. Thought you might enjoy.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/watch-two-nine-inch-nails-performances-from-austin-city-limits-20140404

and in nine months, someone's got some 'splaining to do!